Now, after this HARD EVIDENCE, you probably will play ignorant and keep denying it exist.

So asking to watch this video FULL of evidence, has no value, you'll probally dont WANT TO KNOW.

You have decided to appeal to authority, an other logic fallacy that you use to try to discredit evidence. You do not look at the facts.(You already noted for using ad hominem to try to discredit me in an other threat.)

I've often wondered about this exact statement. All these heavy metals which are toxic to humans are definitely landing in our lakes, streams and other fresh water supplies and have been documented at 100-500% increases in regular sample tests from years gone by.

So it's getting in the public water supply and in the soil inwhich most people's foods are grown. I figure the highest and most well off (I detest the word elite for such evil degenerates) are drinking distiller waters and have most of their food supplies come from heirloom seeds grown in green houses far from the reaches of the toxins being dispersed in our atmosphere.

Or they have some magic elixir that helps flush out any or all toxic substances?? Not entirely sure, I know I only drink distilled water and am going to build a greenhouse if the Lord permits me. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering is REAL and our eyes aren't deceiving us, to all the shills from tavistock, tell your bosses at the CFR we aren't believing your lies and you will pay for your crimes against humanity.

You wouldn't know credible if you saw it. You accept nonsense as fact from complete nobodies...just because they agree with you. Not because they have any credibility at all. They certainly are NOT educated in aviation or science.

And I don't give a shit if some restricted moron doesn't find me, personally, credible. No matter what, I have the facts on my side. You have the ignorant fantasy with nothing to back it up, on your side.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

AC465 you should venture beyond the text book, you might understand contrails but you fail to understand there are also chemtrails. You are telling people that they only believe in them because others think its credible..? That's what you're doing, except your saying chemtrails don't exist at all.

Clearly there are two sides to this, which is why there is conflict between chemtards, and tard-tards. Do you not believe what you see with your own eyes? What do you really rely on that you consider fact that completely discredits chemtrails.School me on contrails, sure...condensation, always normal, right..I can type you all of my credibility as well but its only as good as you saying you're representing professional aviation..

Also, what else do you come to godlike for, what else are you interested in on this forum?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4383319

Why venture beyond a text book when I have no reason to?! There isn't ANY evidence to suggest these trails are anything more than contrails.

I see NO evidence that "chemtrails" exist!

I don't give a shit about the other subjects on GLP. I didn't go to school for those subjects. I went to school for aviation. I know you people are spreading ignorant bs as truth. And in the process accusing innocent people of horrible things.

The truth is important to me. I don't give a shit if you can't understand that. I'm also not surprised. There are obviously many things you people are unable to understand.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

Are you kidding me? You don't think that most posters here are also wanting the truth, and post just to be fucking stupid? Ofcourse there isn't proof of chemtrails that's why people always post topics about it and make it an actual subject. There has been enough information, speculation, theories, you name it, to even make it become a subject of discussion, regardless of where those asking understand or not.

Example... chemtrails aside from contrails, making the sky hazy when it should not be, especially after a cold front comes through. Contrails don't, and haven't before, made the sky hazy. That only happens when there is a visual difference in the trail left by whichever airliner. That's just one reason why people begin to notice a difference in the first place.

Anyway.. You are still not convincing anyone even though that is not your goal. I am not convincing anyone that there are chemtrails either. Obviously though, there is a difference in the two, whether or not you read about it in a text book in aviation school.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4383319

Please, respond to this AC465 , or whatever you ID is, I know you're still reading.

AC465 you should venture beyond the text book, you might understand contrails but you fail to understand there are also chemtrails. You are telling people that they only believe in them because others think its credible..? That's what you're doing, except your saying chemtrails don't exist at all.

Clearly there are two sides to this, which is why there is conflict between chemtards, and tard-tards. Do you not believe what you see with your own eyes? What do you really rely on that you consider fact that completely discredits chemtrails.School me on contrails, sure...condensation, always normal, right..I can type you all of my credibility as well but its only as good as you saying you're representing professional aviation..

Also, what else do you come to godlike for, what else are you interested in on this forum?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4383319

Why venture beyond a text book when I have no reason to?! There isn't ANY evidence to suggest these trails are anything more than contrails.

I see NO evidence that "chemtrails" exist!

I don't give a shit about the other subjects on GLP. I didn't go to school for those subjects. I went to school for aviation. I know you people are spreading ignorant bs as truth. And in the process accusing innocent people of horrible things.

The truth is important to me. I don't give a shit if you can't understand that. I'm also not surprised. There are obviously many things you people are unable to understand.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

Are you kidding me? You don't think that most posters here are also wanting the truth, and post just to be fucking stupid? Ofcourse there isn't proof of chemtrails that's why people always post topics about it and make it an actual subject. There has been enough information, speculation, theories, you name it, to even make it become a subject of discussion, regardless of where those asking understand or not.

Example... chemtrails aside from contrails, making the sky hazy when it should not be, especially after a cold front comes through. Contrails don't, and haven't before, made the sky hazy. That only happens when there is a visual difference in the trail left by whichever airliner. That's just one reason why people begin to notice a difference in the first place.

Anyway.. You are still not convincing anyone even though that is not your goal. I am not convincing anyone that there are chemtrails either. Obviously though, there is a difference in the two, whether or not you read about it in a text book in aviation school.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4383319

Please, respond to this AC465 , or whatever you ID is, I know you're still reading.

Now, after this HARD EVIDENCE, you probably will play ignorant and keep denying it exist.

So asking to watch this video FULL of evidence, has no value, you'll probally dont WANT TO KNOW.

You have decided to appeal to authority, an other logic fallacy that you use to try to discredit evidence. You do not look at the facts.(You already noted for using ad hominem to try to discredit me in an other threat.)

Why venture beyond a text book when I have no reason to?! There isn't ANY evidence to suggest these trails are anything more than contrails.

I see NO evidence that "chemtrails" exist!

I don't give a shit about the other subjects on GLP. I didn't go to school for those subjects. I went to school for aviation. I know you people are spreading ignorant bs as truth. And in the process accusing innocent people of horrible things.

The truth is important to me. I don't give a shit if you can't understand that. I'm also not surprised. There are obviously many things you people are unable to understand.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

Are you kidding me? You don't think that most posters here are also wanting the truth, and post just to be fucking stupid? Ofcourse there isn't proof of chemtrails that's why people always post topics about it and make it an actual subject. There has been enough information, speculation, theories, you name it, to even make it become a subject of discussion, regardless of where those asking understand or not.

Example... chemtrails aside from contrails, making the sky hazy when it should not be, especially after a cold front comes through. Contrails don't, and haven't before, made the sky hazy. That only happens when there is a visual difference in the trail left by whichever airliner. That's just one reason why people begin to notice a difference in the first place.

Anyway.. You are still not convincing anyone even though that is not your goal. I am not convincing anyone that there are chemtrails either. Obviously though, there is a difference in the two, whether or not you read about it in a text book in aviation school.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4383319

Please, respond to this AC465 , or whatever you ID is, I know you're still reading.

BTW there's no hard evidence of life on other planets, that isn't proof that there isn't any.

Your abuse of the term evidence is a sign that you don't really inderstand the scientific method.

There is anectodal evidence and emprical evidence in lieu of hard evidence. Only a fool ignores the first two in pursuit of proof. Incidentally evidence is not proof.

Child or loser, certainly not a seasoned scientist.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29271249

But no one claims as a FACT that there is or isn't life on other planets! You chemtards claim as fact, that the trails aren't contrails!

Can't you see the fucking difference?!

If you actually understood atmospheric science and aviation, ALL that you accept as any type of evidence that the trails are made of chemicals would immediately disappear.

No, I'm not a scientist. But. I do understand the science. Which is more than I can say for any chemtard.

Anyone who claims that "chemtrails persist, while contrails quickly dissipate" is an absolute moron. And that is the MAIN claim of chemtards.

You people are the definition of the word "loser".

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

I am a scientist. And I can assure you, as a scientist, I know how to stay on the fence about a subject that doesn't lend itself to absolute hard evidence and proof as you obviously can not.

Thank you for admitting you are not a scientist because your demands for evidence were an obvious giveaway that you do not even know the difference between evidence and proof.

Which leads us to believe you are a child AND a loser.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29271249

If you're a chemtard, there is no way you understand atmospheric science.

And if you understood science, you would know that it's far more likely that the trails are nothing more than contrails..,and there wouldn't BE a fence!

I'm not a scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm not educated in aviation and atmospheric science. I am...and you, obviously, are not.

And I fully understand the difference between evidence, and proof. Please tell me why you think I don't. Because nothing I have written even SUGGESTS such a thing.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

Dude, "chemtard" makes you a newbie child and "I'm not a scientist" makes you a newbie and/or a loser shill? Why do you guys keep validating my assessment that by using certain terminology you are one or the other or both?

But no one claims as a FACT that there is or isn't life on other planets! You chemtards claim as fact, that the trails aren't contrails!

Can't you see the fucking difference?!

If you actually understood atmospheric science and aviation, ALL that you accept as any type of evidence that the trails are made of chemicals would immediately disappear.

No, I'm not a scientist. But. I do understand the science. Which is more than I can say for any chemtard.

Anyone who claims that "chemtrails persist, while contrails quickly dissipate" is an absolute moron. And that is the MAIN claim of chemtards.

You people are the definition of the word "loser".

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

I am a scientist. And I can assure you, as a scientist, I know how to stay on the fence about a subject that doesn't lend itself to absolute hard evidence and proof as you obviously can not.

Thank you for admitting you are not a scientist because your demands for evidence were an obvious giveaway that you do not even know the difference between evidence and proof.

Which leads us to believe you are a child AND a loser.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29271249

If you're a chemtard, there is no way you understand atmospheric science.

And if you understood science, you would know that it's far more likely that the trails are nothing more than contrails..,and there wouldn't BE a fence!

I'm not a scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm not educated in aviation and atmospheric science. I am...and you, obviously, are not.

And I fully understand the difference between evidence, and proof. Please tell me why you think I don't. Because nothing I have written even SUGGESTS such a thing.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

Dude, "chemtard" makes you a newbie child and "I'm not a scientist" makes you a newbie and/or a loser shill? Why do you guys keep validating my assessment that by using certain terminology you are one or the other or both?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29271249

Your bullshit claim of being a scientist was typical for chemtards and their "fearless leaders"

You wouldn't know credible if you saw it. You accept nonsense as fact from complete nobodies...just because they agree with you. Not because they have any credibility at all. They certainly are NOT educated in aviation or science.

And I don't give a shit if some restricted moron doesn't find me, personally, credible. No matter what, I have the facts on my side. You have the ignorant fantasy with nothing to back it up, on your side.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

AC465 you should venture beyond the text book, you might understand contrails but you fail to understand there are also chemtrails. You are telling people that they only believe in them because others think its credible..? That's what you're doing, except your saying chemtrails don't exist at all.

Clearly there are two sides to this, which is why there is conflict between chemtards, and tard-tards. Do you not believe what you see with your own eyes? What do you really rely on that you consider fact that completely discredits chemtrails.School me on contrails, sure...condensation, always normal, right..I can type you all of my credibility as well but its only as good as you saying you're representing professional aviation..

Also, what else do you come to godlike for, what else are you interested in on this forum?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4383319

Why venture beyond a text book when I have no reason to?! There isn't ANY evidence to suggest these trails are anything more than contrails.

I see NO evidence that "chemtrails" exist!

I don't give a shit about the other subjects on GLP. I didn't go to school for those subjects. I went to school for aviation. I know you people are spreading ignorant bs as truth. And in the process accusing innocent people of horrible things.

The truth is important to me. I don't give a shit if you can't understand that. I'm also not surprised. There are obviously many things you people are unable to understand.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

Are you kidding me? You don't think that most posters here are also wanting the truth, and post just to be fucking stupid? Ofcourse there isn't proof of chemtrails that's why people always post topics about it and make it an actual subject. There has been enough information, speculation, theories, you name it, to even make it become a subject of discussion, regardless of where those asking understand or not.

Example... chemtrails aside from contrails, making the sky hazy when it should not be, especially after a cold front comes through. Contrails don't, and haven't before, made the sky hazy. That only happens when there is a visual difference in the trail left by whichever airliner. That's just one reason why people begin to notice a difference in the first place.

Anyway.. You are still not convincing anyone even though that is not your goal. I am not convincing anyone that there are chemtrails either. Obviously though, there is a difference in the two, whether or not you read about it in a text book in aviation school.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4383319

No, you people don't want truth. You want to jump to conclusion and make assumptions about your paranoid fantasy in an effort to recruit others into your pathetic cult of ignorance.

Contrails have always made the sky hazy. It just happens more often now because of the added flights, airports, air outer and high efficiency engines.

You chemtards like to assume that these things don't matter..you refuse to believe it, because it instantly kills the stupid fantasy.

And yes, you chemtards have actually recruited other gullible losers into your religion of stupidity.

Religion? Why?

Because ALL you have is faith...

Faith in your knowledge, the knowledge of your direct peers and faith in your belief that there is no way anyone is going to fool YOU. That's impossible... You know it's true...because you know it's true.

I am a scientist. And I can assure you, as a scientist, I know how to stay on the fence about a subject that doesn't lend itself to absolute hard evidence and proof as you obviously can not.

Thank you for admitting you are not a scientist because your demands for evidence were an obvious giveaway that you do not even know the difference between evidence and proof.

Which leads us to believe you are a child AND a loser.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29271249

If you're a chemtard, there is no way you understand atmospheric science.

And if you understood science, you would know that it's far more likely that the trails are nothing more than contrails..,and there wouldn't BE a fence!

I'm not a scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm not educated in aviation and atmospheric science. I am...and you, obviously, are not.

And I fully understand the difference between evidence, and proof. Please tell me why you think I don't. Because nothing I have written even SUGGESTS such a thing.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25792038

Dude, "chemtard" makes you a newbie child and "I'm not a scientist" makes you a newbie and/or a loser shill? Why do you guys keep validating my assessment that by using certain terminology you are one or the other or both?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29271249

Your bullshit claim of being a scientist was typical for chemtards and their "fearless leaders"

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29077765

your use of chemtard puts you in the child newbie category.

you guys can't seem to avoid being categorized by your own childish or shill like behavior, can you?

I don't know all the answers to all the questions being asked. I do know that I get tired of seeing all the back and forth on whether there are or not chemtrails. Read the House bill below that never went anywhere.

HR 2977 IH

107th CONGRESS1st Session

H. R. 2977To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESOctober 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILLTo preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.

Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.

The President shall--(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.

The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.SEC. 5. REPORT.

The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--(1) space exploration;(2) space research and development;(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;(ii) chemtrails;(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;(v) laser weapons systems;(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

I don't know all the answers to all the questions being asked. I do know that I get tired of seeing all the back and forth on whether there are or not chemtrails. Read the House bill below that never went anywhere.

HR 2977 IH

107th CONGRESS1st Session

H. R. 2977To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESOctober 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILLTo preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.

Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.

The President shall--(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.

The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.SEC. 5. REPORT.

The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--(1) space exploration;(2) space research and development;(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;(ii) chemtrails;(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;(v) laser weapons systems;(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.